Drawing upon decades of experience, RAND provides research services, systematic analysis, and innovative thinking to a global clientele that includes government agencies, foundations, and private-sector firms.

The Pardee RAND Graduate School (PRGS.edu) is the largest public policy Ph.D. program in the nation and the only program based at an independent public policy research organization—the RAND Corporation.

Bin Laden May Be Fishing for Allies on Europe's Secular Left

The Al Qaeda leader set aside his usual religious rhetoric in favor
of phrases from the Marxist revolutionary lexicon.

In his latest audiotaped message, Osama bin Laden has offered immunity
from further terrorist attacks to "our neighbors north of the Mediterranean"
that "do not attack Muslim nations." In other words, Bin Laden
is telling European nations that if they pull their troops out of Afghanistan
and Iraq, Al Qaeda will put them on its temporary "do not disturb"
list.

Is this a serious offer, or something else?

European governments quickly denounced the Bin Laden bargain, saying
they would not make deals with terrorists. No 21st century Neville Chamberlain
stepped forward to proclaim "peace in our time" with the leader
of Al Qaeda. Bin Laden most likely expected such rejection. So why did
he make the offer?

Let's start with the least likely explanation of the tape: A war-weary
Bin Laden wants to give peace a chance. Truces do have precedent in the
military history of the Arabs as well as in the annals of terrorism, but
they are considered to be tactical and temporary and may be unilaterally
revoked when no longer advantageous. Even if Bin Laden does live up to
his promise to suspend violence in Europe to give countries there time
to consider his offer, he limited the cease-fire to three months.

And like all terrorists, Bin Laden disavows culpability. If further violence
happens, "do not blame us," he says. "Blame yourselves."

Another possible explanation — perhaps the one most widely accepted
— was that the offer represented a clever effort by the terrorist
leader to divide Europe from the United States and divide antiwar European
citizens from their governments. Or, as some have suggested, the tape
may have been a secret signal to Bin Laden's Al Qaeda followers and an
indication that attacks were imminent.

But here's another possible explanation: Perhaps the main purpose of
the tape was to entice non-Muslim European radicals to join Islamic jihadists
in attacking the U.S. and its allies.

Terrorism, like war, makes for strange alliances. In recent times, Palestinian
terrorists recruited allies among European and Japanese revolutionaries,
who flocked to training camps in Jordan and Lebanon in the late 1960s
and early 1970s. The non-Arabs allied with the Palestinians to demonstrate
solidarity and acquire practical skills required for the global revolution
they hoped to foster — all under a secular, non-Muslim banner.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, with which members
of Germany's Red Army Faction and Japan's Red Army shared a common Marxist
ideology, was the most successful Arab group at recruiting foreign talent.
For the Popular Front, European and Japanese operatives aroused less suspicion
than Arabs. More recently, Italy's new generation of Red Brigades applauded
the 9/11 attacks and called for an alliance between European and Middle
Eastern terrorists.

Is Bin Laden's message a call to action for non-Muslims? His past tapes
have been calls to action directed at Muslims alone. He has stressed the
aggressive schemes of the "infidels" and lamented the "black
misfortunes" of Islam, berating Muslims for their substandard zeal
in joining jihad, and attempting to inspire young men to emulate the "heroes"
of 9/11 and reap the rewards of martyrdom.

But Bin Laden's language on his most recent tape may well indicate he
is fishing in different waters this time — not in the usual pools
of alienated Muslim youth, but in the growing tide of anti-American, anti-globalization
sentiments.

Except for a few formulaic phrases, the latest message is significantly
free of religious rhetoric. Instead it employs terms like "bloodsuckers"
and "merchants of war."

Bin Laden says on the new tape that "this war brings billions of
dollars in profit to the major companies … such as the Halliburton
company." He rails against the "Zionist lobby," the "White
House gang," and those "who are steering the world policy from
behind a curtain." These are expressions more commonly found in the
rhetoric of the far left.

Non-Muslim youths seeking spiritual fulfillment or adventure in Afghanistan
have been swept into Al Qaeda's orbit in the past. But their journey usually
began with conversion to Islam. Bin Laden may now be encouraging a mutant
form of jihad that jumps its religious borders to become a broader ideology
of anti-Western protest.

Contemporary jihadists and leftist extremists find common cause in their
opposition to globalization. To the jihadists, the World Trade Center
was not just a pair of tall buildings. It was a bold architectural assertion
of American-driven globalization even before that term was invented, reflecting
both the ambition and the destructiveness of Western economic might as
it confronted and crushed traditional societies.

In deciding to go to war with Iraq, the administration conflated the
threat posed by Al Qaeda with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein —
considering actions against both to be part of the "global war on
terror." Bin Laden has cleverly done something quite similar. The
terrorist leader has conflated the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, which
was supported in Europe, with the war in Iraq, which is unpopular.

The goal is to portray America and those who remain in its orbit as the
real axis of evil. In response, the United States has to be careful not
to fall into Bin Laden's trap by portraying European skepticism about
the war in Iraq as capitulation to terrorism. Linking the two risks losing
support on both fronts.

Because the Iraq war has sparked such resentment both among the European
left and many Muslims, Bin Laden might see the war as a great unifying
gift from Allah. The war has facilitated Al Qaeda recruitment, created
a new battle front for jihad and exposed American soldiers to precisely
the kind of war the jihadists are best at waging.

The jihadists' broad themes — whether addressing Muslims or European
radicals — are the same. The terrorists cast themselves as selfless
heroes out to end the suffering of the innocent, as unceasing warriors
against Western imperialists, as champions of the downtrodden and as undying
opponents of an evil Israel. The selection of specific issues remains
opportunistic.

Bin Laden's recent message to Europeans is this: Don't shed European
blood for the gang in the White House. The message conveniently ignores
the fact that it is the terrorists themselves who have done the killing
in Europe. A talented communicator, Bin Laden has this time crafted his
words to sell his product — violent opposition to America and the
West — to the widest possible audience.

Brian Michael Jenkins is a terrorism expert at Rand Corp., a nonprofit
research organization.

This commentary originally appeared in Los Angeles Times on April 25, 2004.

The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.